Teamwork in Assertive Community Treatment (TACT)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Teamwork in Assertive Community Treatment (TACT)"

Madeline Lawson
5 years ago
Views:

1 References for Teamwork in Assertive Community Treatment Scale items 1. Levitt B, March JG: Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14: , Tucker AL, Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC: Implementing new practices: an empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Science 53: , Jehn KA: A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly 40: , Shah PP, Dirks KT, Chervany N: The multiple pathways of high performing groups: the interaction of social networks and group processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27: , Edmondson AC: Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: , Edmondson AC: Speaking up in the operating room: how team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies 40: , Zohar D: A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology 85: , Shah R, Ward PT: Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of Operations Management 25: , Endsley MR: Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: a critical review; in Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Edited by Endsley MR, Garland DJ. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates,

2 Appendix A: TACT Definitions and Items Construct Definition Items MODERATING PROCESSES Team Learning (1, also see2) Exploration & Exploitation 1 None 2 Once or twice 3 Three to five times 4 More than five times (during the past six months) Conflict & Constructive Controversy (3, 4) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Somewhat disagree 3 Somewhat agree 4 Strongly agree Exploration is activities that identify the best practices that are currently available from external sources. Exploitation is activities that operationalize practices in a given setting and evaluate their performance. Conflict is perceived incompatibilities or discrepant views among team members. Constructive controversy is the critical and open discussion of divergent perspectives including task related facts, data and opposing ideas. I reviewed resource manuals and written materials for effective ACT team's work processes. I reviewed s and newsletters for effective ACT team's work processes. I participated in training sessions for ACT teams. I participated in training sessions related to ACT (e.g., integrated dual disorder treatment, supported employment, cognitive behavioral therapy). I observed other ACT teams. I learned new ideas for improving ACT team's work processes from my ACT team members. I participated in selecting work process changes for implementation. I helped to implement a planned change in my ACT team's work processes. I participated in analyzing problems in my ACT team's work processes. I helped to evaluate a planned change in my ACT team's work processes. I reflected on our ACT team organization and improvement activities with my ACT team. I felt that my ACT team members did NOT get along. I felt that personality clashes were evident in my ACT team. I felt that conflicts regarding ideas frequently arose in my ACT team. I felt that my ACT team members had different opinions about how to organize work. I felt that even when we disagreed on my ACT team, we communicated with respect for each other. I felt that on my ACT team we used our opposing views to understand problems. 2

3 Appendix A: TACT Definitions and Items Construct Definition Items MODERATING STATES Psychological Safety (5, 6) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Somewhat disagree 3 Somewhat agree 4 Strongly agree Goal Agreement Safety and Quality Orientation (7) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Somewhat disagree 3 Somewhat agree 4 Strongly agree Team psychological safety is a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. Goal agreement is a shared perception of the priority of a team s objectives. I felt that I could bring up personal safety issues, such as working in dangerous neighborhoods, to my ACT team members. I felt that I could bring up mistakes and slips by my team in consumer care activities to my ACT team members. I felt that I could bring up problems and tough issues, such as unprofessional behavior or missing team meetings, to my ACT team members. I felt that if I made a mistake, other members of my ACT team would NOT hold it against me. I felt that it was safe to take a risk to try new things in my ACT team. I felt that my personal skills and talents were valued by other members of my ACT team. I felt that it was easy to ask for a change in the time of a visit. I felt that it was easy to ask for a partner to accompany me on a visit. I felt that I had the time during visits with consumers to assure safety for me or the consumers, even if it meant visiting fewer consumers. I felt that I had the time to assure high quality visits with consumers, even if it meant visiting fewer consumers. I felt that I had to make as many consumer visits as possible, even if it meant lower quality visits or less personal or consumer safety. (reverse coded) 3

4 Appendix A: TACT Definitions and Items Construct Definition Items MEDIATING PROCESSES Information Accessibility (8) 1 Almost never 2 Occasionally 3 Often 4 Usually 5 Almost always Information accessibility is low waste in obtaining information. I could obtain information about consumer issues, such as living arrangements or personal relationships, from my ACT team's daily meeting. I could obtain information about consumers that I needed to provide care from other members of my ACT team. I felt that the encounter notes for consumers who I was visiting were current. I felt that the rehabilitation interventions for consumers to be seen that day were clearly discussed during daily team meetings. MEDIATING STATES Situational Awareness Encounter Preparedness & Consumer-Centered Care (9) 1 Almost never 2 Occasionally 3 Often 4 Usually 5 Almost always Encounter preparedness is the degree to which team members feel prepared to perform their daily tasks. A high degree of preparedness means that a team member knows her or his schedule, consumer information, purpose of the visit, and the activities/intervention that he or she should perform during an encounter. I worked with consumers to develop rehabilitation goals. I knew my complete consumer visit schedule. I knew the medical diagnosis of the consumer before a visit. I knew the functional assessment of the consumer before a visit. I knew the rehabilitative intervention I should work on with the consumer before a visit. I related my observations of the consumer during a visit to the consumer's medical diagnosis and functional assessment. I knew how to code a visit s rehabilitation activities at the conclusion of the visit. Consumer-centered care is the degree to which teams integrate Consumers participated in treatment planning meetings. Rehabilitation planning was integrated into assessments, treatment planning, or interventions. 4

5 Appendix A: TACT Definitions and Items Construct Definition Items consumer-specific contexts and conditions Skill building was integrated into assessments, treatment planning, or interventions. in their treatment planning and interventions. Natural supports were integrated into assessments, treatment planning, or interventions. 5

6 Appendix B. Factor Loadings from Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation of 1st Wave 1, 2 Variable Exploita tion Psych Safety Enctr Prep Cons Ctrd Conflict Explorat ion Goal Agree Const Contr Info Access Safety personal issue Safety mistake Safety problems Safety tolerance Safety take risk Safety skill valued Safety change time Safety ask company Conflict get along Conflict person clash Conflict ideas Conflict diff opinions Conflict respect Conflict understand Goal safety Goal quality Goal productivity Info from meeting Info from peers Info notes current Info intervention discussed Know consumer involvement Know schedule Know diagnosis Know function assess Know rehab intervention

7 Appendix B. Factor Loadings from Exploratory Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation of 1st Wave 1, 2 Variable Exploita tion Psych Safety Enctr Prep Cons Ctrd Conflict Explorat ion Goal Agree Const Contr Info Access Know relate observation Know code rehab Know consumer participation Know integration Know skill building Know natural support Learn review manual Learn review newsletter Learn act training Learn other training Learn observation Learn from peers Learn select change Learn implement change Learn analyze problem Learn evaluate change Learn reflect

8 1. Four candidate items that loaded on single-item factors in an initial EFA were dropped from the scale and excluded from this analysis. 2. Highlights indicate item-to-factor assignments. 8

Oak Meadow Autonomy Survey

Oak Meadow Autonomy Survey Patricia M. Meehan, Ph.D. August 7, 214 1 Contents Contents 3 List of Figures 3 List of Tables 3 1 Introduction 4 2 Data 4 3 Determining the Number of Factors 5 4 Proposed Model